On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.0.1.0 > > PROPOSAL (0.9): delay the /usr/share/doc transition > > ABSTRACT: If we start moving the contents of /usr/doc to > /usr/share/doc at this point, not long before a release, we will > either have to delay the release (in order to bring all packages up to > policy 3.0.x compliance) or be forced to release an inconsistent > system, with some packages using /usr/doc and some using > /usr/share/doc.
I think there are several wrong assumptions here: 1. "Today is not long before a release". The fact is that *nobody* knows when we will get rid of the 200 important bugs, so saying "at this point" is not very meaningful. 2. We would have to delay a release to meet a "release goal". The release manager has clearly stated that FHS compliance is not a "release goal". Everybody seemed to agree we should not have "release goals" anymore. 3. A system having packages using /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc is "inconsistent" and this should be avoided by all means. This mix of /usr/share/doc and /usr/doc will happen sooner or later. If we delay the move to potato+1 it is almost sure that it will not be finished at release time either, because there are too many packages in the distribution. In the long term, the chances that potato+1 was fully FHS-compliant will be higher if we start the transition right now. > Unlike most other FHS-mandated changes, an inconsistency here will be > *highly* visible, So what? "less" and "cd" support both dirs. > and probably very annoying to our users. How can you measure the annoyance? [ I'm curious about this ]. Are we going to take a step back because of something we can't measure? Thanks. -- "81a9e6c2016fa09c325ec8ef6f76a2f0" (a truly random sig)
